I wish people would understand that gays are mentally defective. Men can not make babies together !! HELLO !!???!!!I have nothing against people with disabilities but c'mon...We might as well make all pencils into candycanes cause retards like to chew things ....

Serious question, if Ralph and Johnny want to get married how does that effect you and why do you care? As long as their are good people I don't even care if they adopt children.

At least to me this is one of those ridiculous issues that people get up in arms about even though it has no real impact on their lives.

Where do I start?

1. Homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal behavior. In addition, I'm also a Christian and the Bible expressly condemns homosexuality (the conduct, not the person). Those two factors define my view of homosexuality and gay marriage. I think most of the country agrees with me. In fact, the numbers from coast to coast prove this.

2. The government should not legitimize abnormal behavior, using my tax dollars. We regulate and/or prohibit plenty of conduct: seat belt laws, helmet laws, smokers, polygamy, etc. There is nothing wrong with the government regulating, or refusing to legitimize, certain behavior. That's what we're talking about here.

3. I believe in preserving traditional marriage, which is THE foundation of our society. The traditional family by and large produces our best citizens. I think a child raised by a homosexual couple will grow up in an aurora of confusion and moral ambiguity. I don't think it's a healthy environment at all. Yes a gay couple can produce a good citizen and yes a heterosexual couple can produce Jeffrey Dahmer, but by and large I believe that teaching children that nature is unimportant (or redefining nature) is harmful to the child.

unless the majority of the population is willing to recognize gay union as a marriage it shoudlnt be legally so. its not that they cant be together or take advantage of common law tax breaks and whatnot, but if the majority of the population doesnt recognize their union as a marriage telling them they have to is like making a law saying grass is red.

I'm not for/against gay marriage, per se. I do find it funny how anyone against it is a bigot, LOL! It's the same argument right-wingers use for people against the war, unpatriotic.

As far as who it affects? Ultimately it will affect the family unit. How? who the hell knows, but it's disingenuous to assert that there won't be some impact. I'm totally sick of bllshit comparisons between gays and slavery/interracial marriage, and every other civil rights thing we can think of .... you can't bootstrap every issue in the world to civil rights. With more gay marriage will come more divorce and the status of children from "non-traditional" marriages will eventually have to be determined by individual states or a few rich people in Washington, D.C.

Our society has determined what marriage is, period.

The real question is why do gays need marriage redefined to legitimize/validate their lifestyle? How is a marriage certificate going to make gays gayer? Spousal benefits... fine, as long as they can deal with losing half of their crap when a bf/gf moves out, LOL! I specifically want to know what the state recognizing a gay union is supposed to do, especially considering said unions can't produce children.

Not asking for value judgements about gay lifestyles, just an explanation why some gays feel marriage will legitimize them.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal behavior. In addition, I'm also a Christian and the Bible expressly condemns homosexuality (the conduct, not the person). Those two factors define my view of homosexuality and gay marriage. I think most of the country agrees with me. In fact, the numbers from coast to coast prove this.

2. The government should not legitimize abnormal behavior, using my tax dollars. We regulate and/or prohibit plenty of conduct: seat belt laws, helmet laws, smokers, polygamy, etc. There is nothing wrong with the government regulating, or refusing to legitimize, certain behavior. That's what we're talking about here.

3. I believe in preserving traditional marriage, which is THE foundation of our society. The traditional family by and large produces our best citizens. I think a child raised by a homosexual couple will grow up in an aurora of confusion and moral ambiguity. I don't think it's a healthy environment at all. Yes a gay couple can produce a good citizen and yes a heterosexual couple can produce Jeffrey Dahmer, but by and large I believe that teaching children that nature is unimportant (or redefining nature) is harmful to the child.

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

But the court left it to the Legislature to determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed the best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

Instead, the high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions. (Opinion -- pdf)

"The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people," the court said in its 4-3 ruling.

New Jersey lawmakers voted to allow domestic partnerships in 2004, but they have been reluctant to delve into the sensitive issue of marriage.

Under domestic partnerships, gay couples have some benefits of marriage, such as the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and healthcare coverage for state workers.

The case was brought by seven gay couples who say the state constitution allows them to marry.

New Jersey is one of only five U.S. states with neither a law nor a state constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage. As a result, the state is more likely than others to allow gays to wed, said advocacy groups on both sides.

Only Massachusetts -- by virtue of a 2003 ruling from that state's top court -- allows gay marriages.

Proponents and opponents from across the country are watching the case closely.

"New Jersey is a stepping stone," said Matt Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, a group pushing for an amendment to the federal Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. "It's not about New Jersey."

From a practical standpoint, the Massachusetts court decision made little impact nationally because the state has a law barring out-of-state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states.

New Jersey has no such law.

People on both sides of the issue expect a victory for same-sex unions would make New Jersey a destination for gay couples from around the country who want to get married. Some of those couples could return home and sue to have their marriages recognized.

Daniels said gay-rights advocates are already looking ahead to such lawsuits. "Their game, of course, is they figure all they need to do is execute this maneuver in a half-dozen states and they'll have the momentum," he said.

David S. Buckel, the Lambda Legal lawyer who argued on behalf of the seven New Jersey couples, said he expects some couples would travel to the New Jersey to get married if his suit is successful. But, he said, "it won't be tidal."

Buckel said that there have been relatively few such lawsuits filed in the U.S. by couples who went to Canada to exchange vows.

And, he said, while many same-sex couples would prefer to be married, they are getting more legal protections for their relationships. Several states, including New Jersey, offer domestic partnerships or civil unions with some of the benefits of marriage. A growing number of employers are treating same-sex couples the same way they treat married couples.

Cases similar to New Jersey's are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

Conservatives watching the cases believe the best chance for gay marriage to be allowed would be in New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal behavior. In addition, I'm also a Christian and the Bible expressly condemns homosexuality (the conduct, not the person). Those two factors define my view of homosexuality and gay marriage. I think most of the country agrees with me. In fact, the numbers from coast to coast prove this.

2. The government should not legitimize abnormal behavior, using my tax dollars. We regulate and/or prohibit plenty of conduct: seat belt laws, helmet laws, smokers, polygamy, etc. There is nothing wrong with the government regulating, or refusing to legitimize, certain behavior. That's what we're talking about here.

3. I believe in preserving traditional marriage, which is THE foundation of our society. The traditional family by and large produces our best citizens. I think a child raised by a homosexual couple will grow up in an aurora of confusion and moral ambiguity. I don't think it's a healthy environment at all. Yes a gay couple can produce a good citizen and yes a heterosexual couple can produce Jeffrey Dahmer, but by and large I believe that teaching children that nature is unimportant (or redefining nature) is harmful to the child.

That's off the top of my head.

1. Religion says homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal. I don't want religion dictating what is right or wrong in my life. I grew up Irish Catholic in Boston and the same religion that told me homosexuality was a sin allowed homosexual priests to sexually abuse countless children. In my opinion religion has no place in dictating the laws of society. Is it against the law to be a homosexual? If it's not against the law then homosexuals should be able to get married.

2. See my first point. Your religion SHOULD NEVER dictate the laws of the land. In fact I find it rather egotistical that you think the country should be governed based on your religious beliefs. Not everyone believes what you believe yet you want everyone to live under your belief system.

3.The traditional marriage debate I see no merit in. All three of your points were formed by you because of your religious belief system. We live in a country where Paris Hilton is a role model, where Jerry Springer can thrive and where corruption is the order of the day yet you're worried about what two gay guys that have no effect on your life and that you don't even know are doing? This is the height of egotism.

There are good people that are homosexual and there are good people that are heterosexual and the same can be said for bad people. I'd bet the percentage of good and bad people in each demographic are roughly the same as well. So my guess is a homosexual couple is just as likely to bring up a healthy and happy child as a heterosexual child is.

I'll say this again and until I die. Religion has no place in dictating the laws under which we live. Morals and a sense of right and wrong seperate from religion is what the laws of the land should be based upon.

What two homosexuals do that has no effect on our lives is none of our business.

Something just occured to me. Typically Democrats want government to control nearly everything in our lives. Republicans on the other hand want government to control very little if anything at all.

Given your desire to control what homosexuals can and can not do are you a closet liberal?

1. Religion says homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal. I don't want religion dictating what is right or wrong in my life. I grew up Irish Catholic in Boston and the same religion that told me homosexuality was a sin allowed homosexual priests to sexually abuse countless children. In my opinion religion has no place in dictating the laws of society. Is it against the law to be a homosexual? If it's not against the law then homosexuals should be able to get married.

2. See my first point. Your religion SHOULD NEVER dictate the laws of the land. In fact I find it rather egotistical that you think the country should be governed based on your religious beliefs. Not everyone believes what you believe yet you want everyone to live under your belief system.

3.The traditional marriage debate I see no merit in. All three of your points were formed by you because of your religious belief system. We live in a country where Paris Hilton is a role model, where Jerry Springer can thrive and where corruption is the order of the day yet you're worried about what two gay guys that have no effect on your life and that you don't even know are doing? This is the height of egotism.

There are good people that are homosexual and there are good people that are heterosexual and the same can be said for bad people. I'd bet the percentage of good and bad people in each demographic are roughly the same as well. So my guess is a homosexual couple is just as likely to bring up a healthy and happy child as a heterosexual child is.

I'll say this again and until I die. Religion has no place in dictating the laws under which we live. Morals and a sense of right and wrong seperate from religion is what the laws of the land should be based upon.

What two homosexuals do that has no effect on our lives is none of our business.

1. Actually, nature says homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal. Society would disappear without normal heterosexual relationships. I would be opposed to the lifestyle if I was an atheist.

2. You're in the minority again. Religion dictates much of our laws: murder, stealing, lying, adultery (which probably isn't a crime anywhere, but is still considered immoral by most), etc. These laws are grounded on Biblical definitions of right and wrong. You may be opposed to the religious influence in the legislative process, but is, always has been, and always will be a part of our fabric. You cannot ignore religious viewpoints in the legislative process. That partly explains why an atheist cannot be elected president.

Egotistical? I'm citing the facts. The public has overwhelmingly rejected homosexual marriage every single time it has come up for a vote. In most cases by very wide margins.

3. I actually form most of my opinions independent of my religious beliefs. For example, I would believe stealing was wrong even if I was an agnostic and didn't read the Bible. I would think we all have a duty to honor our parents even if it wasn't the fifth commandment in the Bible, etc. So, you're wrong about my belief in traditional marriage being grounded solely on religion. That said, my religious beliefs have, for the most part, confirmed my opinions, beliefs, and practices.

You are free to voice your opinion till you die. You should continue to do so with the minority of other voters at the polls when these issues come up for a vote. I suspect you will always be in the minority.

In the desperate days before a significant election, the liberal establishment has chosen to refocus attention on social issues like embryonic stem cell research (with a sad, exploitative TV spot featuring Michael J. Fox) and same sex marriage (with a sweeping, outrageous new court decision in New Jersey - a decision which the judges chose to announce just days before America votes).

On both these divisive issues, liberals use lying language - habitually, deliberately, shamelessly. Concerning stem cells, the mainstream media regularly suggest that conservatives want to “ban stem cell research.” Aside from ignoring the essential distinctive between research involving adult stem cells (research that’s never been controversial) and science involving embryonic stem cell experimentation (which has always inspired sharp controversy), the talk of a “stem cell ban” hides the even more important difference between government permitting - and government promoting - a course of action. Conservatives don’t want stem cell research banned - but we don’t want our tax money used for that purpose. If Michael J. Fox and his friends want to raise private funds for the medical research they desire, then there’s no legal or political block to this undertaking. The money invested in his manipulative TV spot opposing Senator Jim Talent of Missouri (and distorting his record) easily could have gone directly to research on embryonic stem cells. I don’t want to ban that research - any more than I want to ban handguns (to cite another controversial issue of personal choice). But I’d strongly oppose a government program to buy revolvers for private homes - because people can do it themselves, and many (if not most) American taxpayers don’t want their money used that way. The stem cell issue isn’t a debate over scientific freedom - it’s a debate of governmental subsidies.

Similarly, the media moguls refuse to give up on the term “gay marriage bans” in reference to the eight ballot propositions before voters on November 7th. In most cases, these initiatives (like previous defense of marriage efforts) ban NOTHING. They merely define marriage as limited to one man and one woman. Such state constitutional amendments (like the Federal Marriage Amendment) could just as easily and accurately be described as “polygamy bans.” They have become necessary because of irresponsibly activist courts like New Jersey’s, that suddenly gives the legislature a 180 day ultimatum and orders the elected representatives of the people to fall into line when it comes to determining government support for intimate relationships. As with stem cells, the real issue isn’t an attempt to ban or restrict any sort of private behavior: it is, rather, a crucial argument over government policy. The fact that I don’t want government promoting gay relationships (with tax breaks, welfare benefits, legal privileges of all kinds) doesn’t mean that I want government to prohibit those relationships. As with stem cells, the proper governmental approach should be strict neutrality - not outlawing, and not endorsing gay intimacy.

The secular liberal establishment wants you to believe that such issues actually show the “extreme religious right” in an effort to impose our values on everyone else. This is, to put it directly, a pernicious lie. It’s our opponents who want to impose their values on the nation at large - by forcing the government that represents all of us to endorse, promote, sanction and pay for behavior which, though permitted as a matter of private choice, remains highly questionable as a priority for public policy.

1. Actually, nature says homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal. Society would disappear without normal heterosexual relationships. I would be opposed to the lifestyle if I was an atheist.

2. You're in the minority again. Religion dictates much of our laws: murder, stealing, lying, adultery (which probably isn't a crime anywhere, but is still considered immoral by most), etc. These laws are grounded on Biblical definitions of right and wrong. You may be opposed to the religious influence in the legislative process, but is, always has been, and always will be a part of our fabric. You cannot ignore religious viewpoints in the legislative process. That partly explains why an atheist cannot be elected president.

Egotistical? I'm citing the facts. The public has overwhelming rejected homosexual marriage every single time it has come up for a vote. In most cases by very wide margins.

3. I actually form most of my opinions independent of my religious beliefs. For example, I would believe stealing was wrong even if I was an agnostic and didn't read the Bible. I would think we all have a duty to honor our parents even if it wasn't the fifth commandment in the Bible, etc. So, you're wrong about my belief in traditional marriage being grounded solely on religion. That said, my religious beliefs have, for the most part, confirmed my opinions, beliefs, and practices.

You are free to voice your opinion till you die. You should continue to do so with the minority of other voters at the polls when these issues come up for a vote. I suspect you will always be in the minority.

I don't have time to break down all your points right now but I'll make a few quick comments.

It's impossible for you to know what you would think and how you would feel if you were an atheist or an agnostic because you aren't either of those things. You're whole belief system is shaped by your religion. Everything you think and feel stems from what you were taught. You can't seperate them now.

And my being in the minority proves nothing. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have the two biggest radio programs in the country. If I'm in the minority and people that listen to those shows are in the majority then I'll take the minority every day and twice on Sunday.

Of course it's egotistical of you and anyone else with a particular religious belief system to expect everyone else to live the way your religion dictates. Is that really something you're disputing? Same goes for every religion

You're comment on nature saying homosexuality is abnormal is laughable. Nature created homosexuality and it exists in quite a few species of mammal.

From what you've said I assume you believe in God. God created Earth and all it's creatures, right? Why would God create something that religion calls a sin?

As I said, if two gay men want to get married it's none of my business. As long as they're good people I wish them nothing but happiness. If they were the focus of my attention then my life would have to be pretty empty.